Overfill Devices; Interim Final Rule

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 155 and 156

[CGD 90-071a]

RIN 2115-AD87

Overfill Devices

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is issuing an interim final rule (IFR) that

establishes minimum standards for overfill devices and requires the

phased-in installation and use of devices on the cargo tanks of certain

tank vessels that carry oil or oil residue as primary cargo.

Regulations addressing minimum standards for and concerning the use of

overfill devices are required by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA

90). The purpose of the interim regulations is to reduce the likelihood

of spills when oil is loaded as cargo.

DATES: The interim final rule is effective on January 19, 1995.

Comments must be received by January 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine

Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 90-071a), U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001 or may

be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone

number is (202) 267-1477. Comments on collection-of-information

requirements must be mailed also to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street

NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.

The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for the

rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be

available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard

Headquarters, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Jeff Brager, Office of Marine

Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-MVI-1), (202) 267-

1046.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in the

rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Persons

submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify

the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) and the specific section of this rule to

which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment.

Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound

format, no larger than 8 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of

comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the

comment period. It may change this rule in view of the comments.

Drafting Information

The principal persons involved in drafting this document are

Randall Crenwelge, Project Manager, and Pamela Pelcovits, Project

Counsel, OPA 90 Staff.

Regulatory History

Section 4110 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L.

101-380) adds a statutory note following 46 U.S.C. 3703 requiring, in

part, the establishment of minimum standards for overfill warning

devices and requirements concerning the use of overfill devices on

certain tank vessels.

To meet the statutory requirements, the Coast Guard published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Overfill Devices,'' in

the Federal Register (58 FR 4040; January 12, 1993). The Coast Guard

received 32 letters commenting on the proposal.

In response to some comments, the Coast Guard published a notice

(58 FR 54315; October 21, 1993) and held a public meeting at U.S. Coast

Guard Headquarters on November 17, 1993. Twenty-eight people attended

the meeting, and a list of the attendees and audio tapes of the meeting

are available in the public docket for the rulemaking (CGD 90-071a) at

the address listed under ADDRESSES. Statements made at the meeting have

been treated like written comments in the preamble.

Background and Purpose

Detailed information on overfill spills and devices is found in the

preamble to the NPRM.

An overfill spill occurs when too much oil is pumped or gravitated

into a cargo tank during a transfer operation (e.g., from a facility to

a tank vessel or from one tank vessel to another). Human error is the

most often reported cause of this type of spill. Many overfill spills

are small; however, some reported overfill spills have involved large

quantities of oil.

Coast Guard regulations require vessel owners and operators to

follow pollution prevention procedures during oil transfer operations

(33 CFR parts 155 and 156). Existing regulations do not require devices

on cargo tanks to detect and warn of impending overfills.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

Location of Regulations

One comment objected to the proposed placement of the regulations

in 33 CFR subchapter O as too cumbersome and confusing due to cross

references, applicability sections, exceptions, and definitions. The

comment recommended a comprehensive reorganization of the regulations

based on statutory authorities. A reorganization of 33 CFR subchapter O

is outside the scope of the rulemaking; however, the interim

regulations amending 33 CFR subchapter O have been drafted to be as

clear and concise as possible.

Applicability

In the NPRM, the Coast Guard proposed requiring overfill devices on

tank vessels with a cargo capacity of more than 40 cubic meters

(M3) (approximately 250 barrels, 1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons). One

comment suggested that the threshold was inappropriate and that

additional ``small vessels'' should be excluded from the regulations.

The comment stated that current oil transfer procedure requirements

found in 33 CFR parts 155 and 156 are adequate to prevent overflow

spills from smaller tank vessels because these vessels have simple oil

transfer systems. The comment also stated that the cost of installing

and maintaining overfill devices would be a significant financial

burden to the company submitting the comment.

The Coast Guard reviewed spill data from tank vessels for the years

1989, 1990, and 1991 and found that tank overflow spills occurred

infrequently aboard vessels with cargo carrying capacities of less than

1,000 M3 (approximately 6,290 barrels). Specifically, a total of

279 cargo tank overflow spills were recorded during the 3-year period.

Of those overfill spills, 215 cargo tank overflow incidents occurred

from tank barges. Only four of the 215 overflows were from barges with

a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting in 0.6 M3

(159 gallons) oil spilled. During the same period, 64 similar incidents

occurred aboard tankships. Of these incidents, only two occurred from

tankships with a cargo capacity of less than 1,000 M3, resulting

in 0.4 M3(106 gals) oil spilled.

In response to this comment and its review of available data, the

Coast Guard has raised the applicability threshold in Sec. 155.480(a)

to a cargo capacity of 1,000 M3. The Coast Guard requests comments

concerning this change. The data on which the Coast Guard made its

decision is available in the docket for review.

One comment specified that the phase-in requirements proposed in 33

CFR 155.480(c) did not cover Canadian tank barges because they are not

subject to the requirements of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and

the International Load Line Conventions. The Coast Guard did not intend

for Canadian barges which operate in U.S. waters to be treated

differently from U.S. flag barges under the regulations. The Coast

Guard expects that overfill devices will be installed on such Canadian

tank barges at their next scheduled drydocking or internal tank

examination.

One comment recommended that tank vessels required to be equipped

with double hulls within the next 5 years under the double hull

requirements of OPA 90 should be excluded from the overfill device

requirements. The comment contends that many of these vessels will be

phased out of service in 5 years and that the costs of upgrading

overfill devices on these vessels would not be recovered within 5

years. The Coast Guard agrees and has added Sec. 155.480(e) to reflect

the exemption of vessels that under 46 U.S.C. 3703a(c) can not operate

on the navigable waters or Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States

after the year 2000, unless equipped with a double hull.

One comment requested that the regulations not apply to open-hopper

barges which are limited to carrying non-hazardous oil-field waste

material. Because such cargo operations are not covered by 33 CFR parts

155 and 156, the requirements for overfill devices do not apply to

these barges.

One comment at the public meeting requested that the regulations

not apply to tank vessels which carry only asphalt. Participants at the

public meeting noted that because of the density of asphalt, vessels

carrying this product are usually not fully loaded. Also, the

participants reported no overfill spills from asphalt carriers.

Currently, technology is not available to provide a cost-effective

means of overfill detection for asphalt carriers. Therefore, the Coast

Guard has decided to exempt tank vessels that are dedicated to carrying

asphalt as cargo from the overfill device requirements. This change is

reflected in Sec. 155.480(f). The Coast Guard requests comments

concerning the exemption of tank vessels carrying asphalt from this

interim rulemaking.

One comment asked the Coast Guard to require overfill devices to be

activated during all types of cargo transfers, including internal

transfers from tank to tank and cargo discharges. Although overfill

incidents do occur during internal cargo transfers and discharges,

these incidents are infrequent and do not result in large spills into

the water. Tank vessel owners and operators are encouraged to use

overfill devices for all transfer operations, but the regulations

continue to apply only during loading.

Two comments asked that the regulations not apply to deck tanks

used to store barge generator and pump fuel, or oil slops. The

regulations only require installation of overfill devices on cargo

tanks. Deck tanks used for slops and barge generator and pump fuel are

not covered by the regulations.

Seven comments stated that high viscosity oils prevent overfill

devices from functioning properly. The Coast Guard finds that heavy

oils are just as likely to overflow from cargo tanks as lower viscosity

oils. Vessel owners and operators must choose overfill devices best

suited for the oil they carry and, in accordance with 33 CFR

155.750(e)(2), 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(3), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(b)(3), they

must test their equipment prior to each cargo loading. If a method of

overfill detection is not technologically available for a particular

type of high temperature service oil, such as Number 6 oil, the owner

or operator of a vessel, on a case by case basis, may request an

alternative means of compliance in accordance with 33 CFR 155.120(c) of

this regulation. The Coast Guard requests comments concerning the

application of alternative means of compliance with the interim

regulations for vessels carrying high temperature service oils.

One State agency requested that the Coast Guard require overfill

devices on vessels which carry non-petroleum oils as cargo. A barge

company submitted a comment recommending the continued exclusion of

vessels carrying non-petroleum oil cargoes. In the NPRM, the Coast

Guard explained that it is interested in addressing overfill spills of

MARPOL Annex I oils because these products represent the most

significant risk. They are the most frequently transported cargoes with

the greatest volume transported and spilled. Non-petroleum oils are not

MARPOL Annex I oils. The Coast Guard may extend the regulations to

additional oils in the future, but for now will not impose overfill

device regulations on tank vessels which exclusively carry non-

petroleum oils.

In accordance with 33 CFR 155.1015, this rule does not apply to

foreign tank vessels engaged in innocent passage in the territorial

sea. These vessels do not engage in cargo loading operations in U.S.

waters and, therefore, the Coast Guard is not exercising jurisdiction

over these vessels for this interim rulemaking.

Minimum Standards for Overfill Devices: Tankers

One comment from an industry association recommended that only one

overfill alarm instead of two, as proposed in the NPRM, should be

required in each tank. The comment argued that the standards for vapor

recovery equipment should not be applied automatically to overfill

devices because of the particular nature of vapor recovery. For vapor

recovery systems, the potential for cargo tank overpressure and

rupturing of vapor recovery piping dictated a two-alarm system. The

Coast Guard agrees that one overfill alarm per cargo tank is sufficient

and Sec. 155.480 has been revised to reflect this. This change also

applies to cargo tanks with closed loading systems.

Minimum Standards For Overfill Devices: Barges

Much of the discussion in the NPRM concerning standards for

overfill devices dealt with barges. Twelve comments responded to the

question posed in the NPRM on whether a high level indicating device,

such as a stick gauge, would be an adequate overfill warning device on

a barge. Six comments, all from the barge industry, favored the use of

stick gauges.

At the public meeting, representatives from the barge industry

stated that most barges currently have no overfill devices. In most

cases, the level of liquid in a barge is determined by the use of

sounding tapes, ullage measuring devices, or inspection ports. Several

participants at the meeting expressed the view that adding an overfill

alarm system for each tank would be extremely expensive for barge

owners and operators. Barge owners and operators currently using stick

gauges as well as the vapor recovery systems would incur significant

costs if an additional alarm system were required.

Barge industry representatives contended that the visual signal

provided by high level indicating devices is, in some ways, superior to

the audible signal provided by overfill alarms, which only sound when

an overfill is about to occur. High level indicating devices, when

properly installed and utilized, provide the person-in-charge (PIC) of

the loading operation with a continuous reading of how the later stages

of the loading operation are progressing.

The Coast Guard will allow the owners and operators of tank barges

to select one of three alternatives: (1) an overfill alarm on each tank

which includes circuitry to sufficiently identify which individual

tanks overfill system is alarming, (2) an automatic shutdown system for

the entire barge and transfer facility, or (3) a high level indicating

device installed on each tank, such as a stick gauge.

Two of the comments also recommended that the Coast Guard allow

portable stick gauges, which would be moved from tank to tank, as the

tanks were sequentially topped off. This recommendation assumes that

tanks will always be sequentially topped off, which may not be the

case. Accordingly, the Coast Guard will require that when stick gauges

are used, they must be permanently installed on each tank.

Six comments stated that a stick gauge was inadequate to warn of an

imminent spill when the PIC was off the barge or performing other

duties. These comments favored alarms and automatic shutdown systems.

However, the Coast Guard finds that audible alarms are just as

ineffective as stick gauges if the PIC is not in the immediate vicinity

of the transfer operation.

The Coast Guard encourages the use of systems which automatically

shut down the transfer pumps before an overfill spill occurs; however,

the Coast Guard does not require these systems to be used, for several

reasons. The requirement would be cost-prohibitive for some owners and

operators; it would require additional maintenance; and extra people

would be needed to perform this maintenance. Additionally, industry

standards for the necessary shoreside and barge interface would need to

be developed. Developing these standards would be time-consuming.

Over the next 5 years, the Coast Guard will monitor the

effectiveness of high level indicating devices. If at the end of this

period, the Coast Guard determines that the overfill spill record of

tank barges equipped with these devices is not essentially as good or

better than the overfill spill record of other tank vessels covered by

the regulations, the Coast Guard may remove the provision in the

regulation allowing use of high level indicating devices as substitutes

for overfill alarms.

Two comments recommended requiring only one overfill alarm on a

tank instead of two as required by the NPRM, because only one alarm is

needed to alert the PIC to act to prevent an overfill. The Coast Guard

has decided to allow as an option, the use of one high level indicating

alarm or one alarm with an independent visual or audible device

installed on each tank, which must function as an overfill device for

each tank on a tank barge. Its purpose is to warn the PIC that

immediate action must be taken to prevent a tank overfill and oil spill

during loading operations. Section 155.480 has been revised to reflect

this.

Some comments recommended technical specifications for the overfill

devices. Presently, the Coast Guard does not find a need to develop

technical specifications for overfill devices. Many of the devices that

meet the requirements of the regulations are already in service as high

level indicating devices aboard tank vessels. The Coast Guard finds

that cross referencing its performance criteria to those provided in

the vapor control regulations is the most efficient manner of setting

these regulatory requirements. Vessel owners and operators should

utilize devices which conform to the flag state or classification

society inspection criteria and are most suitable for their vessels'

operating environments.

Training

Four comments stated that trained, professional tankermen are

essential on board tank barges to prevent oil spills, and that the

Coast Guard should establish requirements to improve PIC performance

rather than require new equipment. One comment stated that only

qualified people who have received proper training should be allowed to

use the required overfill warning devices. The Coast Guard strongly

encourages owners, operators, and tankermen's services to provide

complete and adequate training in the proper use of high level

indicating devices, but the setting of training requirements exceeds

the scope of this rulemaking.

Another comment stated that tankermen on unmanned barges may not be

as familiar with the barge as tankermen on manned barges. Tankermen on

a manned barge are often assigned to that barge on a long-term basis.

They become intimately familiar with their barges; whereas, tankermen

on unmanned barges are temporarily assigned to a barge only for a

loading or unloading operation. Regardless of whether a barge is manned

or unmanned, it is the duty of the tankerman to conduct safe and

pollution-free transfer operations.

At this time, the Coast Guard regulations in 33 CFR 156.120 do not

require specific training for the PIC to perform an oil transfer

operation; however, each individual is required to meet the

qualifications for a PIC found in 33 CFR 155.710, and each vessel owner

and operator must keep a list with names of each person currently

designated as PIC for transfer operations.

While the Coast Guard agrees that the competency and training of

tankermen is crucial to spill prevention, it finds that additional

specific training requirements are not appropriate for this rulemaking;

however, changes to these requirements have been proposed in a separate

rulemaking (54 FR 42624; October 17, 1989).

Inspection

One comment recommended that all equipment should be subject to an

annual inspection. Overfill devices will be subject to examination

during the annual tank vessel examination for foreign flag vessels or

the inspection for certification and reinspections of U.S. flag vessels

and Canadian tank barges. In addition, 33 CFR 156.120 requires the PIC

of an oil transfer operation to test each overfill device for proper

operation prior to each transfer of cargo.

Phase-In

Two comments from tank barge operators expressed support for the

timetable for phasing in the installation of each overfill device at

regularly scheduled cargo tank internal examinations.

One comment recommended a 2-year time limit for installations on

barges. The Coast Guard considered accelerating the phase-in period but

decided that the costs associated with gas-freeing a vessel and taking

the vessel out of service would be prohibitive.

Another comment asked if a grace period for overfill device

inspection would be granted for vessels undergoing a cargo tank

internal examination immediately after the effective date of the

regulations. The effective date of the regulations is 90 days after

publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard expects that

vessel repairs or cargo tank internal examinations can be completed

within 90 days. Therefore, vessels which are being repaired or examined

would not be subject to these regulations until, as in the case of a

U.S. flag vessel, the vessel's next cargo tank internal examination.

Tank Level and Pressure Monitoring Devices

One comment suggested that this rulemaking be combined with

standards for equipment detecting leaks in cargo tanks also required

under section 4110 of OPA 90 (CGD 90-071). The Coast Guard disagrees.

Overfill devices are used to detect overfills while transferring,

discharging, or loading cargo. They have a completely different

function when compared with tank level or pressure monitoring devices

which serve to detect leaks in cargo tanks.

Maximum Cargo Level of Oil

Two vessel operators objected to limiting the amount of cargo in a

cargo tank to 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume. The Coast Guard

has not changed the requirement in the interim regulations. Both the

vapor control system regulations (46 CFR 39.30- 1(e)) and these

regulations reflect the Coast Guard's position that filling a tank more

than 98.5 percent poses too high of a risk that there will be a tank

overflow. Therefore, the rule continues to establish a 98.5 percent

level as the maximum level of fill. This rule has been revised to be

consistent with the rules for vapor control systems, to specify that a

tank may not be filled higher than either 98.5 percent or the level at

which the overfill alarms are set, for those cases where shutdown must

be initiated at a level below 98.5 percent to ensure that an overfill

does not occur.

Assessment

This rule is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget under that order. It is significant under the ``Department

of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures'' (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979). Although it does not require an assessment of costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866, an

assessment has been prepared and is available in the docket for

inspection or copying where indicated under ``ADDRESSES.'' The

Assessment is summarized as follows.

The Coast Guard assumes that tankship and tank barge owners and

operators will purchase one high quality, float-type overfill device

for each cargo tank. The Coast Guard also assumes that 25 percent of

all vessels covered by this rulemaking already have some acceptable

form of overfill device installed. Costs for the purchase and

installation of the single alarm system required on the remaining

tankships are estimated at $3,125 per tank, or $43,750 for a tankship

with 14 cargo tanks. Costs for the purchase and installation of the

high level indicating system required on the remaining tank barges are

estimated at $1,650 per tank, or $13,200 for a tank barge with eight

cargo tanks.

The total cost of overfill devices to the industry is calculated

first by estimating cost by vessel type and use for an average size

vessel, and then by aggregating the costs for all vessels engaged in

the trade. The analysis includes self-propelled and non-self-propelled

tank vessels. Total costs, including present value costs, are estimated

separately by vessel type, use, flag, and route.

Assuming a 5-year life for alarm devices and a 15-year life for

high level indicating devices, the present value cost of compliance

through 2015 to tank vessel owners and operators is projected to range

between $103.1 million and $113 million, distributed as follows: (1) to

U.S. tank barges and tankships (commercial or privately owned), $51.8

million; (2) to foreign flag tankships, $49.2 to $59.1 million; and (3)

to U.S. Government tankships, $2.1 million. The present value of the

cost of compliance to the U.S. is $53.9 million through the scope of

this analysis (2015). The regulation will affect approximately 1,615

inland and coastal barges, 147 U.S. flag (commercial or privately

owned) tankships, 375-450 foreign flag tankships, and 23 U.S. Navy and

U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) vessels. Enforcement costs to the

Federal Government are estimated at $785,000 per year.

The analysis indicates that if the entire cost of the

implementation of the regulation were passed on to consumers, the

retail price of domestically consumed petroleum products would increase

approximately .019 dollars per ton or .000007 dollars per gallon; and

the retail price of U.S. petroleum products in export markets would

rise by approximately .112 dollars per ton or .0004 dollars per gallon.

Export markets will be impacted more heavily because 48 million tons of

oil are exported every year versus 850 million tons of oil transported

per year in domestic markets.

According to Coast Guard records, approximately 73,000 gallons of

oil and petroleum products were spilled in U.S. waters from cargo tank

overflows in 1989. The Coast Guard hopes that this regulation will

prevent 100 percent of these oil spills or save approximately 73,000

gallons of oil from spilling per year. Nevertheless, it is expected

that some failures will occur. For comparison, four models are

presented: one in which it is assumed high level indicating devices are

60 percent effective and alarms are 80 percent effective (60%-80%); and

one on which stick gauges are 80 percent effective and alarms are 100

percent effective (80%-100%). Each of these models is presented in two

cases, Case I and II. Case I assumes that there are 500 applicable

foreign vessels, Case II assumes 600.

The present value of the quantified direct benefits from the

installation of overfill warning devices on tankships and tank barges

is 634,021 gallons of oil not spilled, assuming a 60%-80% model,

calculated through 2015 and at a 7 percent discount rate. Assuming an

80%-100% model, benefits increase to 836,489 gallons of oil not

spilled.

The RA estimates four cost-benefit ratios for this rulemaking,

depending on case (Case I or II) and effectiveness (60%-80% or 80%-

100%). The ratios are defined in terms of ``net present value,'' which

is the ``present value'' of costs ($117.1 to $127 million) per

``present value'' of benefits (634,021 to 836,489 gallons of oil not

spilled). The cost to benefit ratio for tankships and tank barges is

between $140 and $200 per gallon of oil not spilled for this

rulemaking. In other words, the rulemaking results in a cost of $140 to

$200 to prevent the spillage of 1 gallon of oil.

One comment stated that the benefits of other rules need to be

reassessed according to the benefits claimed from this rule. In

particular, the comment stated that because this rule will reduce the

number of oil spills, the benefits claimed for the rulemaking entitled,

``Discharge Removal Equipment for Vessels Carrying Oil'', (58 FR

67988), would be less. The comment indicated that the

interrelationships of the OPA 90 rulemakings should be assessed as each

rule is proposed. The Coast Guard is preparing a programmatic

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) which will consider the

interrelationship of all OPA 90 rulemakings, however it is considered

to be impractical to re-examine this RIA in its entirety for each

rulemaking. Where there are obvious and significant interrelationships,

the Coast Guard has taken these factors into account.

Small Entities

Based on the comments received and to lessen the burden on small

entities, the Coast Guard has revised the regulations to apply only to

tank vessels with a cargo carrying capacity of more than 1,000 M3.

This covers 21 tankships and 391 tank barges which are owned and

operated by small companies. They would have been included in the

rulemaking as it was originally proposed.

In addition, the Coast Guard has permitted the alternative of high

level indicating devices for tank barges. This is a less expensive

option and will be much less costly for the smaller entities contained

within the tank barge industry. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements. The

Coast Guard has submitted the requirements to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB has approved them. The

section numbers are Secs. 155.750 (Contents of transfer procedures) and

156.150 (Declaration of inspection), and the corresponding OMB approval

numbers are 2115-0120 and 2115-0506. Section 156.120 is being amended

to reflect this new collection of information requirements.

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that the

rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. One comment requested that

State and municipalities be allowed to adopt stricter requirements than

these Federal regulations. Because tank vessels move between U.S. ports

in the national marketplace and between U.S. and foreign ports in the

international marketplace, standards for overfill devices should be of

national scope to avoid unreasonably burdensome variations.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule

and concluded that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is

not necessary. An Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No

Significant Impact are available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. The EA discusses the action,

subsequent expected environmental impacts, and overall need for the

action. These regulations are not expected to result in a significant

impact on the quality of the human environment because overfills tend

to result in relatively small spills. Therefore, the Coast Guard has

issued a Finding of No Significant Impact which was placed in the

docket for the rulemaking.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 155

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

33 CFR Part 156

Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR parts 155 and 156 as follows:

PART 155--OIL OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION

REGULATIONS FOR VESSELS

1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 155 and the note

following the citation are revised to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1321(j)(1), 46 U.S.C. 3715; E.O.

12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; 49 CFR 1.46. Sections

155.100 through 155.130, 155.350 through 155.400, 155.430, 155.440,

155.470, and 155.1010 through 155.1070 also issued under 33 U.S.C.

1903(b). Sections 155.480, 155.750(e), and 155.775 are issued under

46 U.S.C. 2103 and section 4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515 (46

U.S.C. 3703 note).

Note: Additional requirements for vessels carrying oil or

hazardous materials are contained in 46 CFR parts 30 through 36,

150, 151, and 153.

2. Section 155.110 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 155.110 Definitions.

Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in part

151 of this chapter, except for the word ``oil'', and in part 154 of

this chapter, apply to this part.

3. In Sec. 155.120, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 155.120 Equivalents.

* * * * *

(c) For tank vessels required to have overfill devices installed

under parts 155 and 156 of this chapter, the Commandant may, upon

receipt of a written request, allow any fitting, material, appliance,

or apparatus to be fitted in a tank vessel as an alternative to the

required overfill device(s) that are specified in these parts if the

proposed alternative device is at least as effective as that required

in the regulations.

4. Section 155.480 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 155.480 Overfill devices.

(a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same

definition as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.

(b) Each tank vessel with a cargo capacity of 1,000 or more cubic

meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), loading oil or oil residue as

cargo in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and its

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), must have one overfill device that is

permanently installed on each cargo tank and meets the requirements of

this section. Each newly constructed tank vessel with a cargo capacity

of 1,000 or more cubic meters (approximately 6,290 barrels), which is

intended to be loaded with oil or oil residue as cargo, in order to

receive a Certificate of Inspection (COI), must have an overfill device

installed on each cargo tank that meets the requirements of this

section.

(1) On a tankship, each cargo tank must be equipped with an

overfill device (including an independent audible alarm or visible

indicator for that tank) that meets the requirements for tank overfill

alarms under 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (3), and (d)(1) through (d)(4).

(2) On a tank barge, each cargo tank must be equipped with an

overfill device that--

(i) Meets the requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-7(b)(2) and (b)(3) and

(d)(1) through (d)(4), and 46 CFR 39.20-9(a)(1) through (a)(3);

(ii) Is an installed automatic shutdown system that meets the

requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-9(b); or

(iii) Is an installed high level indicating device that meets the

requirements of 46 CFR 39.20-3(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3).

(c) Each cargo tank of a U.S. flag tank vessel must have installed

on it an overfill device meeting the requirements of this section at

the next scheduled cargo tank internal examination performed on the

vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.

(d) Each cargo tank of a foreign flag tank vessel must have

installed on it an overfill device--

(1) At the first survey that includes dry docking, as required by

the vessel's flag administration, to meet the International Convention

for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, as amended, or the

International Load Line Convention of 1966; or

(2) At the first cargo tank internal examination performed on the

tank vessel under 46 CFR 31.10-21.

(e) This section does not apply to a tank vessel that does not meet

the double hull requirements of Sec. 157.10d of this chapter and, under

46 U.S.C. 3703a(c), may not operate in the navigable waters or

Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States after January 1, 2000.

(f) This section does not apply to tank vessels that carry asphalt

as their only cargo.

5. In Sec. 155.750, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 155.750 Contents of transfer procedures.

* * * * *

(e) If a cargo tank of a tank vessel is fitted with an overfill

device, the transfer procedures must contain a description of the

overfill device, including:

(1) The tank overfill device system and specific procedures for the

person in charge to--

(i) Monitor the level of cargo in the tank; and

(ii) Shut down transfer operations in time to ensure that the cargo

level in each tank does not exceed the maximum amount permitted by

Sec. 155.775(b).

(2) Pre-transfer overfill device equipment inspection and test

requirements.

6. Section 155.775 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 155.775 Maximum cargo level of oil.

(a) For the purposes of this section, ``oil'' has the same meaning

as provided in Sec. 151.05 of this chapter.

(b) A cargo tank on a tank vessel may not be filled with oil higher

than--

(1) 98.5 percent of the cargo tank volume; or

(2) The level at which the overfill alarm required by Sec. 155.480

is set.

PART 156--OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSFER OPERATIONS

7. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 156 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 1321(j)(1)(C) and (D); 46 U.S.C.

3715; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 49 CFR

1.46. Section 156.120(bb) is issued under the authority of section

4110, Pub. L. 101-380, 104 Stat. 515.

8. Section 156.105 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 156.105 Definitions.

Except as specifically stated in a section, the definitions in

Sec. 154.105 of this chapter apply to this subpart.

9. In Sec. 156.120, paragraph (bb) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 156.120 Requirements for transfer.

* * * * *

(bb) If the transfer operation involves loading oil, as defined in

Sec. 151.05 of this chapter, into a cargo tank, the overfill device

required by Sec. 155.480 of this chapter is installed and operating

properly.

Dated: October 13, 1994.

A.E. Henn,

Acting Commandant, United States Coast Guard.

[FR Doc. 94-25998 Filed 10-20-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-14-P